the expression of modality in kanakanavu

The Expression of Modality in Kanakanavu

Yi-Yang Cheng, Li-May Sung

Oceanic Linguistics, Volume 54, Number 1, June 2015, pp. 17-53 (Article)

Published by University of Hawai'i Press

For additional information about this article

Access provided by National Taiwan University (27 Jul 2015 08:02 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ol/summary/v054/54.1.cheng.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ol/summary/v054/54.1.cheng.html

Oceanic Linguistics, Volume 54, no. 1 (June 2015)© by University of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved.

The Expression of Modalityin Kanakanavu

Yi-Yang Cheng and Li-May Sung

NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY

This study investigates the expression of modality in Kanakanavu, a criticallyendangered Formosan language spoken in southern Taiwan. We demonstrate thatthe language shows two independent systems of modality that are distinguishedbased on both semantic and formal properties. On the one hand, there are threemodal expressions of possibility that semantically involve three paths of senseextension, and are morphosyntactically associated with three types of verb serial-ization. On the other hand, the language exhibits an epistemic-evidential systemthat involves four speaker-oriented adverbial expressions that occur in clause-ini-tial position. We further show that there are variations among five Formosan lan-guages concerning the sense extension of possibility expressions, and that aunique case of necessity—anticipative necessity—is shared by Kanakanavu,Tsou, Mayrinax Atayal, and Seediq. Typologically, the modal system in Kanaka-navu shows a lack of alignment between event modality and epistemic modality,the latter exhibiting a stronger bond with evidentiality. This observed phenome-non is in sharp contrast to commonly found European/English-type modal sys-tems in which the event-epistemic overlap is prevalent.

1. INTRODUCTION.1 Modality is a linguistic category relatively more difficult todefine than tense and aspect. The three are generally considered by linguists as belonging tothe coherent typological category of T(ense)-A(spect)-M(odality).2 In the literature, discus-sions on modality may include a complex set of notions—including, at least, those of obliga-tion, necessity, ability, possibility, volition, and prediction3—that, at first sight, do not appearto be definable based on coherent semantic terms, rendering the category “notoriously ill-

1. This study was supported by funding for two research projects (Formation and Fluidity of theIsland World, National Taiwan University [NTU 102R3108], and A Typological Study ofAustronesian Languages in Taiwan and Their Revitalization, National Science Council [NSC100-2420-H-002-035-MY3]) granted to the second author. Special thanks are given toKanakanavu, Tsou, and Seediq language consultants, and two anonymous reviewers whosedetailed and insightful comments have greatly helped the revision process of the paper. All theremaining errors are, of course, our own.

2. Tense-Aspect-Modality manifests a semantic domain that is most commonly associated withverbal morphology (Bybee 1985). Specifically, it forms “a system [that] is most likely togrammaticalize on the verbal word, where it interacts, often intensively, with several otherverb-inflectional sub-systems” (Givón 2001:285).

3. Following Coates (1983), these are the notions that are prototypically associated with theEnglish modal auxiliaries.

18 OCEANIC LINGUISTICS, VOL. 54, NO. 1

defined” (Roberts 1990:364), and posing a problem to any attempt to describe its manifesta-tion in either familiar or minority languages (de Haan 1997:3). Despite the involvement ofsuch complexity, modality in a broad sense can be distinguished from tense and aspect, asthe latter two are concerned with the event’s “location in time” (Comrie 1985:9) and its“internal temporal constituency” (Comrie 1976:3), respectively, whereas modality refers tothe status of events and propositions (Bybee 1985:165, Palmer 2001:1) with regard to thespeaker’s opinion or attitude toward them (Lyons 1977:452, Givón 2001:300).4

In the study of Formosan languages, the expression of modality seldom constitutes anintegrated topic for linguistic inquiry and is usually subordinated under several semanticand morphosyntactic issues. For instance, in examining Formosan TAM systems,Zeitoun, Huang, and Yeh (1996) observe that markers of futurity tend to show extendedmodal functions, in addition to encoding future. The form uri ‘will’ in Stimul Paiwan, forexample, encodes both future, as in (1a), and the high epistemic certainty of the speaker,as in (1b). In addition, Yeh (2006) reports that ’am in Saisiyat serves as a similar multi-functional marker, encoding future, as in (2a), as well as desire, as in (2b).5

(1) STIMUL PAIWANa. Uri k<əm>an ti Palang tua velevel.

will <AF>eat NOM Palang ACC banana‘Palang will eat a banana.’

b. Aycu a ciʔaw uri k<in>an ni Palang.this LIG fish will eat<PRFTV/PF> GEN Palang‘This fish, it is Palang that certainly ate it.’

(Zeitoun, Huang, and Yeh 1996:41)(2) SAISIYAT

a. rim’an ’am ’-om-oral ay?tomorrow ’AM rain-AF- Q

‘Will it rain tomorrow?’b. so’o ’am rima’ ray ko:ko:ol ay?

2SG.NOM ’AM go LOC mountain Q

‘Do you want to go to the mountain?’ (Yeh 2006:401)4. While Palmer (2001) does not specify the term “status,” Bybee’s (1985:165) definition—

“how the speaker chooses to put the proposition into the discourse context”—might be anappropriate interpretation. However, this definition is deliberately reserved for the status ofpropositions, not events.

5. Glossing abbreviations used in this paper follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules. Additionalabbreviations are as follows (note that data cited from other studies retain the glossing abbre-viations used by the original authors, which appear in parentheses here): ASP, aspect marker;(ASSUM), assumption; AV (AF), actor voice; Ca, Ca-reduplication; CONJ, conjunctor; CONT,continuous aspect; CV, circumstantial voice; EVI, evidential; EXIST, existential; fiL, pause filler;INCH, inchoative aspect; IV, instrumental voice; (LIG), ligature; (LING.EVID), reported evi-dence; (LNK), linker; LV (LF), locative voice; NAV, non-actor voice; NEU, neutral case; NONVIS,non-visual evidence; (PART), particle; (PAST), past; (PRES), present; (PRFTV), perfective; PN,proper noun; PV (PF), patient voice; RED, reduplication; SENS.EVID, sensory evidence; (UV),undergoer voice; VBZ, verbalizer; VIS, visual evidence.

In Kavalan and Saisiyat, some upper-case letters are used to represent phonemes that are dis-tinct from what is represented by their lower-case equivalents. In examples from these languages,sentences traditionally do not begin with capital letters, nor do proper nouns, to avoid confusion. InSaisiyat, Yeh (2006) glosses infixes following the stem with a following hyphen, as with ’-om-oralglossed ‘rain-AF-’, no matter how they are realized phonologically.

MODALITY IN KANAKANAVU 19

In other studies, expressions of epistemic modality—which are concerned with thespeaker’s knowledge and belief (Lyons 1977:793)—have been examined as a subtype ofadverbial expressions. Hsiao (2002) investigates adverbials in Squliq Atayal, and reportsthat epistemic expressions may show predicate-like or adjunct-like properties: ki’a‘maybe’, for example, behaves like the main predicate of the clause, and occurs in thefixed clause-initial position, as in (3a), while hazi ‘perhaps’ behaves like an adjunct, andis less restricted in terms of the syntactic positions in which it may occur in the clause, asin (3b). Similarly, Chang (2006a) examines adverbials in Kavalan, and observes thatepistemic pasi ‘possible’ occurs in clause-initial position, and is followed by verbs thatinvolve focus alternations, as in (3c).

(3) a. SQULIQ ATAYAL(Ki’a) cyux (*ki’a) m-’abi slaq hozil qasa. maybe ASP maybe AF-sleep farm dog that‘Maybe the dog is sleeping in the farm.’ (Hsiao 2002:73)

b. SQULIQ ATAYAL(Hazi) cyux (hazi) m-’abi slaq hozil qasa (*hazi). perhaps ASP perhaps AF-sleep farm dog that perhaps‘Perhaps the dog is sleeping in the farm.’ (Hsiao 2002:73)

c. KAVALANpasi etung-an-na-pa ya babuy.possible kill-PF-3SG.GEN-FUT NOM pig‘Possibly, he will kill the pig.’ (Chang 2006b:51)

The expression of modality in Formosan languages has also been discussed with refer-ence to serial verb constructions. As reported by Yeh and Huang (2009), verbs that exhibitmodal functions are found to involve verb serialization, where they are juxtaposed withverbs that are modally predicated. The examples below include the use of asonʉ ‘proba-bly’ in Tsou, in (4a), and SupaR ‘can’ and ngidan ‘want’ in Kavalan, in (4b) and (4c).

(4) a. TSOU’O Mo’o mo asonʉ mici uh tan’e ho beispak’i.NOM PN AV.AUX AV.probably AV.want go here CONJ AV.play‘Mo’o probably wanted to come here to play.’

b. KAVALANSupaR ci’ abas paqangi’ m-Ribang.AV.can NOM PN AV.well AV-rest‘Abas will take a good rest.’

c. KAVALANngid-an-na m-lizaq q<m>an ya baut ’nay.want-UV-3SG.GEN AV-happy <AV>eat NOM fish that‘He wanted to eat the fish happily.’ (Yeh and Huang 2009:92)

While past studies have yielded fruitful results, there is still a lack of consensus as tohow modality as a coherent category is expressed in Formosan languages. On the onehand, labels used for modal notions are usually taken as axiomatic, and tend not to beexplicitly defined based on typological grounds. Zeitoun, Huang, and Yeh (1996) andYeh (2006), for example, employ the label deontic modality, but what are prototypically


considered as deontic notions—that is, obligation and permission—have not been dis-cussed.6 What is more, Yeh and Huang (2009) mention the labels root modal and semi-modal, but do not provide further explications on the distinction between the two. On theother hand, while expressions of epistemic modality have been reported in several stud-ies, their functional and morphosyntactic relationships with other modal categories—awidely discussed topic in Indo-European languages—have generally been omitted. Theresearch gap, therefore, strongly motivates a comprehensive examination of how differ-ent types of modality are related and functionally organized in Formosan languages.

As an attempt to probe into the residual problems from past studies, the present paperaims to investigate the expression of modality as a coherent linguistic category inKanakanavu, a Formosan language spoken in the Namasia district, Kaohsiung, southernTaiwan.7 From a typological perspective, we are in line with Palmer (2001:18) in view-ing modality as a notional category that is identified cross-linguistically but shows varia-tion in how it is manifested in specific languages. Hence, in the following sections, we areconcerned with (i) the manifestation of two typological categories proposed by Palmer(2001:7)—Event modality and Propositional modality 8—in Kanakanavu, and (ii) howthe language can be typologically characterized in terms of its expression of modality.9

This paper is organized as follows. Before probing into the expression of modality,section 2 provides a general introduction to the basic morphosyntax of Kanakanavu.Section 3 examines the language’s expressions of Event modality with regard to theirsemantic and morphosyntactic properties, and section 4 focuses on the expressions ofPropositional modality. In section 5, typological issues concerning modality are dis-cussed with reference to the Kanakanavu data examined in the previous two sections.Section 6 provides the conclusion of this study.

2. A BRIEF SKETCH OF KANAKANAVU MORPHOSYNTAX. Similarto many other Formosan languages, Kanakanavu is a predicate-initial language in whichthe basic clause structure involves a clause-initial predicate slot followed by noun phrasesthat realize the arguments of the main predicate, yielding two basic word order patterns:VSO and VOS. Manifesting a symmetrical voice10 system that is commonly observed inPhilippine-type languages (Himmelmann 2005), Kanakanavu shows a basic distinctionbetween Actor voice (AV) constructions and Non-Actor voice (NAV) constructions,

6. Instead, the label “deontic modality” in these two studies refers to desire, which is usuallylabeled Desiderative or Volitive in typological studies on linguistic modality (van der Auweraand Plungian 1998, Palmer 2001).

7. Kanakanavu is a critically endangered language spoken in the Namasia district, Kaohsiung,Taiwan, with fewer than ten fluent speakers left. It has been classified as a Tsouic languagesince Tsuchida (1976). However, this grouping has been questioned by many recent studies(Chang 2006b, Ross 2012).

8. We follow Palmer (2001:20) in using capitals for special reference to typological categories ofmodality; hence the distinction between Event modality (as a typological category) and eventmodality (as a language-specific semantic domain of modality).

9. Palmer (2001) is adopted in this study for the following reasons. First, it has been establishedas the “standard reference [work] on modality in a typological perspective” (de Haan2006:28). Second, it provides a framework in which modal categories (Event vs. Proposi-tional) are definable by typological parameters, which eschews an arbitrary assignment ofmodal labels to modal expressions as observed in past studies in the Formosan literature.


whereby the verb occurring in the clause-initial predicate position is morphologicallymarked for voice and shows semantic role agreement with the grammatical subject.11 Wehave identified three sets of voice markers, which are shown in table 1. In an AV con-struction, the grammatical subject bears the semantic macrorole of Actor, as in (5a) and(5b). In a NAV construction, it bears the role of Undergoer; (5c) and (5d) exemplify theNAV markers for Patient voice (PV) and Instrumental voice (IV)12 constructions, respec-tively.13 The clause-final subject is marked as Nominative by the case marker sua,14

which, however, may be optionally omitted in spontaneous speech. Location/goal argu-ments are marked by the Locative case marker na, as can be seen in (5d) and (5e).

(5) a. M-acangcangarʉ (sua) Mu’u.AV-happy NOM PN

‘Mu’u is happy.’ (Mu’u = Experiencer/Actor)b. K<um>a-kʉʉn tammi (sua) Pani.

<AV>Ca-eat sweet.potato NOM PN

‘Pani eats sweet potatoes.’ (Pani = Agent/Actor)

10. The label symmetrical voice has different implications when used by different scholars.For Foley (1998), it describes the property of the voice system in which there is no pre-ferred NP type (actor/undergoer) for the syntactic pivot (grammatical subject). For Arka(2003), it emphasizes the core argument status of both actor and undergoer that remainsunaffected in voice alternations. We adapt the label from Himmelmann (2005) to indicatethat neither the AV nor the NAV form in Kanakanavu appears to serve as the unmarked orbasic voice form.

11. The grammatical subject generally occurs in clause-final position in NAV clauses, as in (5c)and (5d), but in AV clauses, variations in word order are observed, as in (5a), (5b), and (5e).

12. There is still a lack of evidence showing the use of si-/se-/sia- as a Beneficiary voice marker.13. Although Wu (2006:112) mentions -a(n) as instantiating the Locative Focus marker, we find

that the marker -an in Kanakanavu is highly unproductive. Below is one of the few exampleswe have, where -an seems to agree with theme subjects rather than location subjects.

(i) Ni-avʉng-an=cu Pani (sua) vantuku na/*sua nakanaka tatarʉ.PFV-hide-AN=INCH PN NOM money LOC/NOM bottom bed‘Pani hid the money under the bed.’

(money = Theme/Undergoer; bottom of the bed = Location)14. Note that Tsuchida (1976) apparently analyzed sua as a marker of core arguments of the verb,

despite the difference in coding (sua as NOM, and sua as OBL), because both the agent andpatient arguments in a transitive clause, as shown in (ii) below, were reported to be marked bysua. This, however, is not observed in our data, which reflect the contemporary use of the lan-guage. As illustrated in (iii) below, the patient argument in an AV construction cannot bemarked by sua.

(ii) Ni-m-ia-pacai sua caau sua tutui.kill:AF-Perf NOM person OBL pig‘The man killed a pig.’ (Tsuchida 1976:36)

(iii) K<um>a-kʉʉn (*sua) cunuku sua Pani.<AV>Ca-eat NOM mochi NOM PN‘Pani eats mochi.’ (our fieldnotes)

TABLE 1. VOICE MARKERS IN KANAKANAVU (cf. Wu 2006)

ACTOR VOICE NON-ACTOR VOICEAGENT VOICE PATIENT VOICE INSTRUMENTAL VOICE<um>/mu-/m- ni-, -in, -(ʉ)n sia-/se-/si-


c. Po-kari-kari-in Pani (sua) kari iisi.utter-RED-word-PV PN NOM word this‘Pani spoke these words.’ (these words = Patient/Undergoer)

d. Si-ima Pani canumu (sua) tanuku tatia.IV-drink PN water NOM cup big‘Pani drank water with the big cup.’ (the big cup = Instrument/Undergoer)

e. Ni-mova Pani cunuku na Mu’u.PFV- AV.take PN mochi LOC PN

‘Pani gave mochi to Mu’u.’ (Mu’u = Goal)

In addition to voice marking, the verb occupying the predicate position is also thelocus for tense-aspect marking. Morphologically, dynamic verbs are inflected for eitherimperfective (Ca-reduplication) or perfective aspect (the prefix ni- or its allomorph, theinfix <in>), which interact with preverbal auxiliaries and aspectual clitics. As can be seenbelow, we identify five tense-aspect markings. On the one hand, perfective (6a), future(6b), and progressive (6c) involve verbal inflection and the presence/absence of preverbalauxiliaries. On the other hand, inchoative and continuous aspects involve the secondposition clitics (Himmelmann 2005) =cu and =pa, which are obligatorily attached to ver-bal predicates that occur in the clause-initial predicate position, including verbs and pre-verbal auxiliaries. While =cu marks that an event involves a change of state, as in (7a),=pa marks the fact that a state or event continues to hold, as in (7b). When an auxiliary ispresent, as with ’esi in (7c), the aspectual clitic =pa is attached to the auxiliary, butnot to the following verb. The tense-aspect markings discussed so far in Kanakanavuare summarized in table 2.

(6) a. Ni-15mova Pani cunuku na Mu’u.PFV-AV.take PN mochi LOC PN

‘Pani gave some mochi to Mu’u.’ (Perfective)b. Tia k<um>a-kʉʉn tammi sua Pani.

FUT <AV>RED-eat sweet.potato NOM PN

‘Pani will eat sweet potatoes.’ (Future)c. ’Esi si’icʉpʉ sua Paicʉ.

PROG AV.sleep NOM PN

‘Paicʉ is sleeping.’ (Progressive)(7) a. Ni-kʉʉn=cu sua tammi.

PFV-eat=INCH NOM sweet.potato‘The sweet potatoes have now been eaten.’ (Inchoative)

TABLE 2. KANAKANAVU TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM

FUTURE PROGRESSIVE IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE INCHOATIVE CONTINUOUSte/tia ’esi Ca-reduplication ni-, <in> =cu =pa

Preverbal Auxiliary Verbal Inflection Cliticization

15.The marker ni- serves two functions. First, it encodes perfectivity when cooccurring with voice markers, as in the case of (6a). Second, when no other voice markers are present in a clause, itis interpreted as a marker of Non-Actor voice (specifically PV), as in (7a).


b. ’Esi=pa k<um>a-kʉʉn tammi sua Pani.PROG=CONT <AV>RED-eat sweet.potato NOM PN

‘Pani is still eating sweet potatoes.’ (Continuous)c. *’Esi k<um>a-kʉʉn=pa tammi sua Pani.

PROG <AV>RED-eat=CONT sweet.potato NOM PN

In terms of the pronominal system, Kanakanavu shows a distinction between free andbound pronouns. The independent free pronouns occur as their proper noun counterpartsdo: the nominative pronouns occur as the grammatical subject of the clause, as in (8a);the oblique pronouns realize the undergoer argument in AV clauses, as in (8b), or na-marked location/goal arguments, as in (8c). The bound pronouns are realized as secondposition clitics, which are obligatorily attached to clause-initial verbal predicates, as in(9a), and may form clusters with aspectual clitics, as in (9b). Note, in particular, that whilethe agent participant in a NAV construction does not involve a preceding case markerwhen realized as a common noun phrase, as has been shown in (5c‒e), its pronominalcounterpart is in the genitive case, as in (9c) and (9d). The pronominal system in Kanaka-navu is shown in table 3.

TABLE 3. KANAKANAVU PRONOMINAL SYSTEM (cf. Wu 2006)†

† As reported in past studies (cf. Tsuchida 1977; Mei 1982:210; Wu2006:114) and also observed by an anonymous reviewer, Kanakanavushows a lack of 3SG/3PL distinction in the pronominal system. However,we do find with our language consultants a singular/plural distinction inboth third person possessive pronouns (=in vs. =ni) and free pronouns(nguain vs. nguani).

Morphosyntax/Case

Person/Number

BOUND FREE

NOM GEN NOM OBL‡

‡ Whereas Mei (1982) and Wu (2006) label the pronouns as UnfocusedIndependent Pronouns, we follow Tsuchida (1977:41, 75) in adoptingthe label OBL for the pronouns so as to be consistent with our using thelabel “voice” and not “focus” in describing the verbal morphology inthe language.

1 SG =ku/=kia#

# An alternative to =ku, =kia serves as a more prestigious form used byelders when speaking to younger generations. However, it can be contex-tually interpreted as referring to the older generation as a collectivewhole, yielding a plural reading as well.

=(m)aku iiku ’ikuaPL INCL =kita =(mi)ta iikita kitana

EXCL =kiim =mia iikim kimia2 SG =kasu =(mu)su iikasu kasua

PL =kamu =mu iikamu kamua3 SG — =kee/=in††

†† Kanakanavu shows a distinction between genitive and possessive boundpronouns only in the third person: =kee marks the agent participant in aNAV construction, as shown in (9d), whereas =in and =ni are attached tonouns that are marked as possessors. Consider:(a) Ka’an=ku tavarʉ’ʉ kari=in / kari=ni.

NEG=1SG.NOM AV.know word=3SG.POSS / word=3PL.POSS‘I don’t understand his/their words.’

nguain ’inia’PL — =kee/=ni nguani ’inia’


(8) a. Tia m-oran cau (sua) Pani / iiku.FUT AV-help person NOM PN / 1SG.NOM

‘Pani’s/I’m going to help someone.’b. Rovʉvʉ kaangvang Pani / kasua.

visit all PN /2SG.OBL

‘Everyone’s visiting Pani/you.’c. Ni-mova Pani cunuku na Mu’u / ’ikua.

PFV-AV.give PN mochi OBL PN / 1SG.OBL

‘Pani gave mochi to Mu’u/me.’(9) a. K<um>a-kʉʉn=ku tammi.

<AV>RED-eat=1SG.NOM sweet.potato‘I eat sweet potatoes.’

b. Te=cu=ku16 mookusa ’umo’uma.FUT=INCH=1SG.NOM AV.go field‘I’m going to go into the fields now.’

c. Ni-kʉʉn=maku sua tammi.PFV-eat=1SG.GEN NOM sweet.potato‘I ate the sweet potato.’/‘The sweet potato was eaten by me.’

d. Ni-aracakan=kee sua vavuru.PFV-hunt=3SG.GEN NOM boar‘He caught the boar in hunting.’/’The boar was caught by him in hunting.’

3. EVENT MODALITY IN KANAKANAVU. According to Palmer (2001),the typological category of Event modality refers to predication on the potential status ofirrealis events, or “events that are not actualized, [and] events that have not taken placebut are merely potential” (70). As can be seen below, English must and can each instanti-ates a subtype of Event modality, predicating on the potential status of unactualizedevents that are expressed by the verbs that follow. While must indicates that the event inquestion is necessitated to be actualized (the event you go has not occurred, but is necessi-tated by some authority to occur in the future), can indicates that the event is made possi-ble, or allowed to be actualized (the event he escapes has not occurred, but is madepossible, or allowed, to occur in the future). The former is generally referred to as neces-sity, and the latter as possibility.

(10) a. You must go now. (Palmer 2001:71)b. He can escape. (Palmer 2001:77)

Semantically, expressions of Event modality may vary with regard to the nature ofconditioning factors vis-à-vis the participants engaged in the event (van der Auwera andPlungian 1998:80–83). In (10), can may indicate that the conditioning factors are internalto the agent participant (that is, he has the ability to escape), or external to the participant(that is, there are environmental conditions that allow him to escape), whereas must onlyindicates that the event is necessitated due to the existence of external social conditions(that is, obligation) compelling the agent to perform the event in question. In other words,

16. The future auxiliary has two forms: te when attached with clitics, and tia elsewhere.


can encodes both participant-internal and participant-external modality, in contrast withmust, which encodes deontic modality.

In Kanakanavu, Event modality is instantiated by three expressions, which are real-ized as verbs that exhibit extended functions in expressing three types of possibility. In thefollowing subsections, we discuss the semantic and morphosyntactic properties of threeverbs: tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, make’enanu ‘no problem’, and teni ‘enough’. For each verb, weidentify its lexical use (patterning as a lexical verb with a nonmodal meaning), and itsmodal use (patterning as a modal expression with extended modal functions), in whichdifferent interactions with tense and aspect are examined.

3.1 POSSIBILITY FROM COGNITION. To begin with, the verb tavarʉ’ʉ‘know’ manifests a case where the cognition sense of knowing extends to encode partici-pant-internal and participant-external possibility. Consider first its use as a lexical verb, asin (11), where an Actor/Experiencer participant and an Undergoer/Theme argument areinvolved, the former being predicated as possessing some knowledge about the latter.Each argument is realized differently in the morphosyntax: (11a) shows its use in the AVconstruction where the Actor/Experiencer (=ku) is in the Nominative case; (11b) showsits use in the NAV construction where the Undergoer/Theme is in the Nominative case.

(11) a. Tavarʉ’ʉ=ku iisi.AV.know=1SG.NOM this‘I know this matter.’

b. Tavarʉ’ʉ-n=maku sua takituturua.know-PV=1SG.GEN NOM teacher‘I know the teacher.’

In addition to the cognition sense when it is used as a lexical verb, tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ alsohas an extended use in which it functions as a modal expression of possibility. Syntacti-cally, the modal use of tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ still involves its serving as the main predicate ofthe clause, as it obligatorily attracts clitics and shows semantic role agreement with theNominative subject, but it is additionally characterized by a verb phrase complement thatimmediately follows it. The verb phrase complement shows defective verbal morphology,being restricted to the AV form, and is not further marked by tense-aspect markers, nor is itconjoined by the conjunctor mata. Consider:

(12) a. Tavarʉ’ʉ=ku (*mata / *tia) po-kari-kari kari iisi.AV.know=1SG.NOM CONJ / FUT utter-RED-word speech this‘I can speak these words.’

b. *Tavarʉ’ʉ pokarikari=ku / pokarikar-in kari iisi. AV.know utter-RED-word=1SG.NOM / utter-RED-word-nav speech this

c. Tavarʉ’ʉ-n=maku po-kari-kari sua kari iisi.know-PV=1SG.GEN utter-RED-word NOM speech this‘I can speak these words.’

Semantically, tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ in (12) encodes the modality of possibility, wherebythe following verb phrase complement expresses an unactualized, irrealis event17 that isdeemed possible to occur in the future due to (i) some kind of (participant-internal) abil-


ity that the Actor participant is believed to possess, or (ii) some (participant-external)conditions that enable the event to occur. For example, in uttering (12a), the speaker maybe expressing the participant-internal sense (that s/he has the linguistic ability to speakthese words) or the participant-external sense (that there are no taboos prohibiting him/her from speaking these words). Note, in particular, that when tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ is used inthe NAV form (tavarʉ’ʉn), where the Actor participant of the irrealis event is omitted, ascan be seen in (13) below, only the participant-external sense is expressed.

(13) Tavarʉ’ʉ-n k<um>ʉʉn sua mamiriki.know-PV=1SG.GEN <AV>eat NOM plum‘The plums can be eaten.’

Serving as a modal expression, tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ imposes an irrealis temporal inter-pretation on the following verb phrase complement, the latter being obligatorilyunmarked for tense and aspect. As can be seen in (14) below, the “possible events” in theuse of tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ are obligatorily interpreted as future-oriented (that is, not yetoccurring, but possible to occur in the future). When aspectual clitics are present, they areobligatorily attached to tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, and interpreted as modifying both the possibil-ity and the irrealis events (that is, can go home and can talk). While =cu indicates that thepresence of possibility is a result of a change of state, as in (14a), =pa indicates that theirrealis event has been possible for a period of time, as in (14b).

(14) a. Tavarʉ’ʉ(=cu)=ku mo-tanasa(*=cu).AV.know=INCH=1SG.NOM go-house=INCH

‘I can go home (now).’b. Tavarʉ’ʉ(=pa)=kasu po-kari-kari(*=pa).

AV.know=CONT=2SG.NOM utter-RED-word=CONT

‘You can (still) talk.’

3.2 POSSIBILITY FROM ACCEPTABILITY. The second expression ofEvent modality in Kanakanavu is the verb make’enanu ‘no problem’,18 which shows anextension of sense from predication on the acceptability of some event (that is, it is OK/noproblem that some event occurs) to expression of permission, or deontic possibility (thatis, some event may occur). As a lexical verb, make’enanu ‘no problem’ serves as a one-place predicate, and takes a clausal complement that denotes an event whose occurrenceis considered acceptable, or tolerable, by the speaker.19 Morphosyntactically, the clausalcomplement of make’enanu ‘no problem’ consists of full-fledged verbs that may bemodified by tense-aspect markers, as in (15a), subject to voice alternation, as in (15b), or17. That is, the event is not a realis event, or a specific event that the speaker believes has already

occurred in reality.18. The verb make’enanu ‘no problem’ is usually pronounced as maakenanu (lengthening of thefirst vowel [a] > [aa] and deletion of the syllable [’e]) or maakenaan (further loss of finalvowel [u] > Ø and lengthening [a] > [aa]) in spontaneous speech. According to our languageconsultants, the form make’enanu is the most formal way of pronouncing the word, beingmostly used by elderly people.

19. An anonymous reviewer points out that the order of make’enanu ‘no problem’ and the follow-ing clause can be reversed, which is the preferred order in his or her data. However, elicitationwith our language consultants only yields the pattern where make’enanu ‘no problem’ is fol-lowed by a complement clause. Without further data from the reviewer, we can only retain ouranalysis of the expression for now.


even negated, as in (15c). Clitics do not cross the clausal boundary of the complement tobe attached to make’enanu ‘no problem’, as can be seen in (15b).

(15) a. Make’enanu [tia maakari nguain kasua]CL.no.problem FUT AV.converse 3SG.NOM 2SG.LOC

‘It’s OK/no problem that s/he will talk to you.’b. Make’enanu(*=musu) [ni-kʉʉn(=musu) sua kamsia]CL.

no.problem(=2SG.GEN) PFV-eat(=2SG.GEN) NOM candy‘It’s OK/no problem that (you) ate the candy.’

c. Make’enanu [ka’aan iovatu sua Pani]CL.no.problem NEG AV.come NOM PN

‘It’s OK/no problem that Pani is not coming.’

Semantically, the lexical use of make’enanu ‘no problem’ in (15) involves predicationon events that may be realis or irrealis. For example, in uttering (15b), the speaker consid-ers the realis event the candies have been eaten (with the perfective marker ni- present)an acceptable one; in (15a), the speaker expresses his or her acceptance or tolerance of theirrealis event s/he will talk to you (with the future marker tia present), indicating thatalthough it has not yet occurred, its occurrence in the future would not be a problem. Inboth cases, the reality status of the event in question is specified by tense-aspect markingwithin the complement clause that is predicated by make’enanu ‘no problem’—the mainpredicate of the matrix clause.

Different from the lexical use illustrated above, the extended modal use ofmake’enanu ‘no problem’ expresses the fact that some Actor participant is permitted toperform an irrealis event, rendering an interpretation similar to that of English may. Ascan be seen in (16) below, make’enanu ‘no problem’ in expressing modality serves as themain predicate of the clause, as it now obligatorily attracts clitics, as in (16a), and is char-acterized by a verb phrase complement that follows immediately, being restricted to theAV form, as in (16b), and not subject to tense-aspect marking, nor preceded by the con-junctor mata, as in (16c).

(16) a. Make’enanu(=cu)=ku mookusa(*=cu) ’inia.no.problem(=INCH)=1SG.NOM AV.go(=INCH) 3SG.LOC

‘I may go there (now).’b. Make’enanu=ku po-kari-kari / *po-kari-kari-in iisi.

no.problem=1SG.NOM utter-RED-word / utter-RED-word-PV this‘I may say this.’

c. Make’enanu=kasu (*tia / *mata) k<um>a-kʉʉn kamsia.no.problem=2SG.NOM FUT / CONJ <AV>Ca-eat candy‘You may eat candies.’

Make’enanu ‘no problem’ in (16) expresses deontic possibility, as it is predicated onthe potential occurrence of an irrealis event—denoted by its verb phrase complement—as being enabled due to the Actor participant’s being permitted to perform it. Differentfrom tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, which allows the Actor participant to be omitted from mention inthe NAV construction (tavarʉ’ʉn) for expressing participant-external possibility,make’enanu ‘no problem’ is itself not subject to voice alternation, and is semantically tied


to the Actor participant: the permission granted to the Actor participant is essential to themodality being expressed.

Note that in the modal use of make’enanu ‘no problem’, the verb phrase complementthat follows is not available for further tense-aspect marking, but the modal expressiondoes impose an irrealis interpretation on it (that is, the event has not yet occurred, but ispermitted to be performed by some Actor in the future). In a difference from the lexicaluse shown in (15), tense-aspect markers interact with the modal make’enanu ‘no prob-lem’. As can be seen in (17a) below, =cu marks the fact that the permission is not granteduntil the sentence has been uttered; in (17b), =pa indicates that the permission continues tobe granted. Additionally, make’enanu ‘no problem’ also interacts with the future markertia, which indicates that the permission will be given sometime in the future, as in (17c).

(17) a. Make’enanu=cu=ku mookusa ’umo’uma’.no.problem=INCH=1SG.NOM AV.go=INCH field‘I may go into the field now.’

b. Make’enanu=pa=ku k<um>a-kʉʉn.no.problem=CONT=1SG.NOM <AV>Ca-eat‘I may still eat.’

c. Tia make’enanu=ku20 maakari kasua nura.FUT no.problem=1SG.NOM AV.converse 2SG.LOC tomorrow‘I may (will be allowed to) talk to you tomorrow.’

3.3 POSSIBILITY FROM SATISFACTION OF QUANTITY/DEGREE.Finally, the third expression of Event modality in Kanakanavu is teni ‘enough’,21 whoselexical sense extends to encode participant-external possibility, with an interpretation thatis roughly equivalent to that of English can. As can be seen below, teni ‘enough’ in itslexical use describes its Undergoer/Theme arguments as objects that have reached somequantitative or degree threshold in being already enough.

(18) a. Teni=ci sua kamsia iisi.enough=INCH NOM candy this‘The candies are enough.’ (There’s no need for more.)

b. Teni=ci sua ni-kʉʉn-a=maku.enough=INCH NOM PFV-eat-REL=1SG.GEN

‘What I’ve eaten is enough.’ (I’ve eaten a lot already.)

From the lexical sense, teni ‘enough’ has an extended modal function whereby it ispredicated on the external enabling factors, which have reached an extent that makes itpossible for some irrealis event to occur. As can be seen in (19) below, teni ‘enough’ inexpressing modality obligatorily attracts clitics and is immediately followed by a verbphrase complement that expresses an irrealis event. Again, the verb phrase complementcannot be preceded by conjunctors or tense-aspect markers.

20. Intriguingly, in the use of make’enanu ‘no.problem’, the clitic is not attracted by preverbal aux-iliaries (*te=ku make’enanu maakari kasua nura for intended ‘I may talk to you tomorrow.’).

21. The verb teni ‘enough’ may also be pronounced as tʉni or teen (with the loss of the final vowel [i]and compensative lengthening [e] > [ee]). When attached to the forms teni and tʉni, the aspectualclitic =cu is realized as its allomorph =ci, which might be attributed to vowel harmony.


(19) a. Teni=ci(=kita) (*mata / *tia) tarasangai(*=kita).enough=INCH=1PLI CONJ / FUT AV.rest=1PLI

‘We can rest now.’ (We’ve worked enough today.)b. Teni=ci (*mata / *tia) poi’i tanasa sua Mu’u.

enough=INCH CONJ / FUT AV.return house NOM PN

‘Mu’u can go home now.’ (He has drunk too much already.)

Semantically, the modal use of teni ‘enough’ does not refer to the Actor participantengaged in the irrealis event, but is concerned with the interaction of the event itself withthe external enabling factors—encoding participant-external possibility only. Morpho-syntactically, teni ‘enough’ itself is not subject to voice alternation, but may precede verbsthat show voice alternation and semantic role agreement with the subject. The Actor par-ticipant engaged in the irrealis event may be optionally omitted when the postmodal verbphrase complement is in the NAV form. Consider:

(20) a. Teni=ci=ku po-kari-kari kari iisi.enough=INCH=1SG.NOM utter-RED-speech speech this‘I can speak these words now.’

b. Teni=ci(=maku) po-kari-kari-in(*=maku) sua kari iisi.enough=INCH=1SG.GEN utter-RED-speech-PV NOM speech this‘I can speak these words now.’/‘These words can be spoken (by me) now.’

As the reader may have already observed, teni ‘enough’ is often further modified bythe inchoative marker =cu. However, unlike tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ and make’enanu ‘no prob-lem’, it may not cooccur with the continuous marker =pa, as can be seen in (21) below.This may be attributed to the modality expressed, where a dynamic process of reaching acertain quantitative/degree threshold is necessarily evoked, which is compatible with thefunction of =cu in marking the change of state involved in such a process (that is, someevent was not yet possible before, but is possible now), but is not compatible with thefunction of =pa.

(21) ?Teni=pa=ku movua kamsia. enough=CONT=1SG.NOM AV.take candyIntended: ‘I can still take candies.’

As can be seen in table 4, the three expressions of Event modality in Kanakanavu canbe distinguished based on (i) their lexical meanings, which serve as the source for extendedmodal use; (ii) the types of possibility being expressed; and (iii) their interaction with tense-aspect marking in the clause. Note, in particular, that no expressions of necessity—as

TABLE 4. EXPRESSIONS OF EVENT MODALITY (POSSIBILITY)IN KANAKANAVU

Modal Expressions

Semantic Properties

tavarʉ’ʉ‘know/can’

make’enanu‘no.problem/may’

teni ‘enough/can’

Lexical source cognition acceptability quantity/degreesatisfaction

Modality (Possibility) Participant-internal/external

Deontic(Actor participant)

Participant-external

Interaction with TA marking =cu/=pa tia/=cu/=pa =cu/*=pa


exemplified by English must in (10)—are identified in the category of Event modality inKanakanavu. The expression of necessity in the language will be discussed in section 4 asa case manifesting Propositional modality, the typological implication of which will be fur-ther discussed in section 5.

3.4 EVENT MODALITY CONSTRUCTIONS AND VERB SERIAL-IZATION. Morphosyntactically, the three expressions of Event modality discussed inthe previous section show similarity in structure to manner expressions in Kanakanavu,both qualifying as event-predicating categories. As has been discussed by Wu (2006),manner adverbials in Kanakanavu represent verbal categories that syntactically involveverb serialization, whereby the manner expression is realized as a full-fledged verb andoccurs in the clause-initial predicate position, where it is juxtaposed with the verb that itsemantically modifies. As can be seen below in (22) (based on Wu 2006:121), no inter-vening elements are allowed between V1 (manner adverbial) and V2 (semanticallymodified verb), as in (22a); V1 and V2 are interpreted within the same time frame, as in(22b); V2 shows a defective verbal morphology in not attracting clitics and being restrictedto the AV form, as in (22c); and the manner and frequency adverbials may serve as inde-pendent verbs taking arguments, as in (22d). Each sentence tests a condition proposed byChang (2006c) for identification of verb serialization: (i) the linkerless condition; (ii) thesame TAM condition; (iii) the subordination condition; and (iv) the lexical verb condition.

(22) a. Moiarʉ=ku (*tia) arapanaʉ.AV.slow=1SG.NOM FUT AV.run‘I run slowly’ (Linkerless condition)

b. Te=ku moiarʉ arapanaʉ.FUT=1SG.NOM AV.slow AV.run‘I will run slowly.’ (Same TAM condition)

c. Mara’an pocipi / *pocipi-in(*=cu=ku).AV.fast AV.cook / cook-PV=INCH=1SG.NOM

‘(I now) cook fast.’ (Subordination condition)d. P-ara’an-ʉn=maku topara.

CAUS-fast-PV=1SG.GEN car‘I make the car go faster.’ (Lexical verb condition)

In this regard, the three expressions of modality—tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, make’enanu ‘noproblem’, and teni ‘enough’—show behavior similar to that of the manner expressionsmoiarʉ ‘slow’ and mara’an ‘fast’. As discussed in the preceding subsections, the threemodal expressions may serve as independent lexical verbs (Lexical verb condition), andare juxtaposed with the semantically modified verb phrase (Linkerless condition) in theirmodal use, rendering the structure [MODALV1 + VERBV2], in which V1 serves as themain predicate of the clause, and V2 the morphologically defective postmodal verb (Sub-ordination condition). In addition, V1 and V2 have the same temporal/aspectual interpre-tation (Same TAM condition). Note, however, that while tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ shows identicalproperties with the manner expressions in satisfying all four serial verb construction(SVC) conditions, make’enanu ‘no problem’ and teni ‘enough’ deviate from tavarʉ’ʉ‘know’ in terms of the verbal morphology of (i) the modal expression (V1), and (ii) the


postmodal verb (V2). Specifically, while neither make’enanu ‘no problem’ nor teni‘enough’ involves voice alternation, the latter is further characterized by the postmodalverb being subject to voice alternation.

Accordingly, it follows that the expression of Event modality in Kanakanavu involvesverb serialization, of which there are three types. First, tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ (Type A) sharesthe morphosyntax of manner expressions; the modal expression is subject to voice alter-nation, and the postmodal lexical verb is restricted to the AV form. Second, make’enanu‘no problem’ (Type B) involves no voice alternation for both the modal expression andthe postmodal lexical verb. Third, teni ‘enough’ (Type C) involves voice alternation onlyfor the postmodal lexical verb. Table 5 summarizes the three types of serial verb con-structions, and the corresponding Event modality constructions in Kanakanavu.

4. PROPOSITIONAL MODALITY IN KANAKANAVU. Whereas Eventmodality involves predication on the potential status of irrealis events, Propositionalmodality casts the predicating scope over the whole proposition, and refers to “thespeaker’s attitude to the ... factual status of the proposition,” whereby two types of notionscome into play—epistemic modality and evidentiality (Palmer 2001:24).22 In expressingepistemic modality, the speaker signals that the state-of-affairs described in a propositionis not knowable through direct perception, but is a matter of his or her knowledge orbelief (Traugott and Dasher 2002). Therefore, the proposition is not asserted to be true,but is subject to different degrees of probability, as exemplified by the English auxiliariesmay, must, and will, as shown in (23).

(23) a. John may be in his office. (Speculative: a possible conclusion)b. John must be in his office. (Deductive: the only possible conclusion)c. John will be in his office. (Assumptive: a reasonable conclusion)

(Palmer 2001:25)

Evidentiality, on the other hand, marks the type of information source on which astatement is based (Aikhenvald 2004:1). A pure evidential system, as illustrated in the

TABLE 5. EVENT MODALITY CONSTRUCTIONS IN KANAKANAVU

Modal expressions

SVC conditions(Chang 2006c)

tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’

make’enanu‘no.problem’

teni‘enough’

Linkerless condition yes yes yesSame TA condition yes yes yesSubordinationcondition

no clitic attraction on V2 yes yes yesAV-only V2 yes yes NO

Lexical verbcondition

use as independent verb yes yes yesvoice alternation yes NO NO

SVC type Type A Type B Type CModality P-int./ext.

possibilityDeontic

possibilityP-ext.

possibility

22. Palmer (2001) used the label evidential modality, as it is grouped under the larger category ofmodality. However, because pure evidential systems do exist and can be typologically distin-guished from pure epistemic systems, we prefer the label evidentiality here.


Ngiyambaa examples below, can make a contrast between sensory evidence, as in (24a),and reported evidence, as in (24b).

(24) NGIYAMBAAa. Indu-gara girambiyi.

you.NOM-SENS.EVID sick.PAST

‘(One can see) you were sick.’b. Indu-dhan girambiyi.

you.NOM-LING.EVID sick.PAST

‘You (are said to) have been sick.’ (Donaldson 1980:275–76)

However, evidentiality is also typologically found to overlap to some extent with epis-temic modality (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998:85–86; de Haan 1999; Givón2001:326; Palmer 2001:24). Tuyuca, for example, has a system that both indicates theinformation source, as in (25a) and (25b), and marks reasonable assumption, as in (25c),the latter being prototypically associated with epistemic modality.

(25) TUYUCAa. Diiga apé-wi.

soccer play.3SG.PAST-VIS

‘He played soccer.’ (I saw him play.) (Visual evidence)b. Diiga apé-ti.

soccer play.3SG.PAST-NONVIS

‘He played soccer.’ (I heard the game and him.) (Nonvisual evidence)c. Diiga apé-hǐyi.

soccer play.3SG.PAST-ASSUM

‘He played soccer.’ (It is reasonable to assume that he did.) (Assumption)(Barnes 1984:257)

In Kanakanavu, the expressions of Propositional modality form a system that is pri-marily epistemic, but shows functions in which evidentiality also plays an essential role.We identify three sets of expressions that can be dichotomized as those that involve a lowdegree of subjectivity—(i) evidence-driven epistemic inference—and those that involvea high degree of subjectivity—(ii) knowledge-based epistemic judgment, and (iii) experi-ence-based anticipative necessity.

4.1 EVIDENCE-DRIVEN EPISTEMIC INFERENCE. To begin with,Kanakanavu has two expressions of Propositional modality whereby the speakerexpresses an inference that is based on some observable evidence. Consider first theexpression makai ‘resemble’, which, in its nonmodal lexical use, encodes resemblance:

(26) Makai kasua sua Pani.resemble 2SG.OBL NOM PN

‘Pani looks just like you.’

In its modal use, makai ‘resemble’ precedes verbs that are subject to voice alternationand tense-aspect marking, the latter expressing a state of affairs that represents a possiblescenario directly related to some observed evidence, rendering an interpretation roughlytranslatable as English seem. As can be seen below, through makai ‘resemble’, the speaker


can indicate that the evidence is observed near the speech time, as in (27a), or temporallydistanced from the speech time, as in (27b). In both cases, the inferences expressed do notinvolve much reasoning, as they are conclusions that can be directly arrived at by what isobserved. In other words, the judgment resembles what is suggested by the evidence.

(27) a. Makai tia paracani sua Pani.resemble FUT AV.sing NOM PN

‘It seems that Pani is going to sing.’ (He is clearing his throat now.)b. Makai ni-ara Pani sua vavuru

resemble PFV-take PN NOM boar‘It seems that Pani took the boar.’ (I saw him carrying it on his shoulder.)

In contrast, a similar expression, kan ‘perhaps’, also serves to encode the speaker’sevidence-driven inference, which, however, is only indirectly related to the observed evi-dence. In other words, the inference involves a certain degree of reasoning, rendering aninterpretation similar to that of English perhaps. As shown below, kan ‘perhaps’ precedesverbs that are subject to voice alternation and tense-aspect marking, and, like makai‘resemble’, presupposes evidence that is either observed near the speech time, as in (28a),or is temporally distant from the speech time, as in (28b).23

23. There are two other expressions we found that are similar to kan ‘perhaps’. First, there is ahearsay marker =kaan, which serves as a second-position clitic, as in (iv) below. Second,another expression kaan, the properties of which are still unknown due to lack of data, is onlyfound following manasʉ ‘probably’, as in (v) below. While kan ‘perhaps’ consists of a shortvowel, both =kaan and kaan involve a long vowel and are pronounced with an accentuatedfalling tone.

(iv) ’Itumuru=kaan tavara’-a=su.AV.many =KAAN know-NMZ=2SG.GEN‘I heard you know much.’

(v) Manasʉ kaan ni-k<um>ʉʉn ‘inia Pani.probably KAAN PFV-<AV>eat 3SG.OBL PN‘Pani has probably eaten it.’

Interestingly, Mei (1982) shows two cases that resemble modal kan ‘perhaps’, hearsay=kaan and also kaan: -kan glossed as INDIC as in (vi), and kan glossed as ‘to be sure’ as in(vii). However, we do not find similar uses with our language consultants.

(vi) P-asi-kʉc-ʉnʉ-kan Usu manu-ini.pinch between fingers:OF1;Imperf-Indic child-here‘Usu pinched her child between fingers.’ (Mei 1982:227)

(vii) Una ta’ʉrʉmʉ esi ’inia ia, nguai kan na nimulu’uthere.is black is there TOP that to.be.sure bloodmia pana’ʉ-ini.when shoot:OF1; Neut.-he‘There is a black spot in there, which was (his blood at the time of his being shot).’

(Mei 1982:228)Our kan ‘perhaps’ may be diachronically related to kan(i), which is described by Mei

(1982:211) as suggesting “speaker’s commitment to factuality, likelihood, or appropriatenessregarding the action or event described in the sentence.” However, no gloss for kani is givenby Mei (1982). Consider:

(viii) Kan(i) tia-kia m-u-a-kusa ’inia kavangvang.will-I go there too

‘I will certainly go there, too.’ (Mei 1982:211)


(28) a. Kan tia kʉʉn-ʉn Mu’u sua mamiriki.perhaps FUT eat-PV PN NOM plum‘Perhaps Mu’u is going to eat the plum.’ (I don’t know why theplum is here.)

b. Kan sima-simaʉ=pa Mu’u ’inia.perhaps RED-play=CONT PN 3SG.LOC

‘Perhaps Mu’u is still playing around over there.’ (I saw him therejust now.)

Accordingly, makai ‘resemble’ and kan ‘perhaps’ manifest two expressions of Proposi-tional modality that involve a low degree of subjectivity in encoding evidence-driven epis-temic inferences, as they presuppose the existence of the evidence on which the epistemicinference is based. While makai ‘resemble’ indicates a direct relation between the evidenceand the inferred scenario, kan ‘perhaps’ indicates an indirect relation between the two.

4.2 KNOWLEDGE-BASED EPISTEMIC JUDGMENT. Kanakanavu alsohas an expression that encodes epistemic modality without indicating that it is based onany kind of objective evidence. The expression manasʉ ‘probably’, which is related tothe notion of certainty in the language, is derivationally associated with the stem -nasʉ‘certain’, as can be seen in (29).

(29) a. Una=maku ta-kanasi-in.EXIST=1SG.GEN TA-certain-PV

‘I am certain.’ (lit., ‘My certainty exists.’)b. Po-nas-a po-kari-kari.

utter-certain-AV.IMP utter-RED-speech‘Speak with certainty!’

Serving as a modal expression, manasʉ ‘probably’ precedes verbs that are marked forvoice and tense-aspect, expressing the speaker’s epistemic judgment based purely on hisor her knowledge or past experience. In other words, manasʉ ‘probably’ encodes thespeaker’s pure supposition or reasoning without reference to what can be directlyobserved. Consider:

(30) a. Manasʉ24 ni-kʉʉn Pani sua tammi.probably PFV-eat PN NOM sweet.potato‘Pani probably ate the sweet potatoes.’ (He is known for a large appetite.)

b. Manasʉ ’esi kuracʉ-n Paicʉ sua Pani.probably PROG angry-PV PN NOM PN

‘Paicʉ is probably angry with Pani.’ (Paicʉ gets angry easily.)

Note, in particular, that depending on the nature of the speaker’s knowledge concern-ing the state of affairs in question, manasʉ ‘probably’ may encode both high and low cer-tainty, and hence is interpretable as both ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’. For example, in(31a) below, the speaker is confident about himself, and can express his high degree of

24. Despite evidence for the stem form for manasʉ ‘probably’, there is still a lack of data concern-ing the morphological status of ma- (or m-) in manasʉ ‘probably’. Because manasʉ ‘probably’is not observed serving lexical verb functions, the possibility that ma- (or m-) can be analyzedas a voice marker is excluded in this paper.


certainty through manasʉ ‘probably’. In (31b), the speaker has only limited knowledgeconcerning the situation being asked about, and expresses less certainty through themodal expression.

(31) a. Pani: Mu’u mata Pa’ʉ ia, neen sua iikamu tasa mintasʉ?PN CONJ PN TOP who NOM 3PL.NOM two fierce‘Mu’u and Pa’ʉ, which of you is fiercer?’

Mu’u: Manasʉ iiku.probably 1SG.NOM

‘It’s definitely me!’b. Q: ’Esi naan sua Pani?

LOC where NOM PN

‘Where is Pani?’A: Manasʉ ’esi ’umo’uma.

probably LOC field‘He’s probably in the fields.’

In light of this, manasʉ ‘probably’ involves a higher degree of subjectivity than makai‘resemble’ and kan ‘perhaps’, as it relates the factual status of the proposition to knowl-edge or experience, which pertain to the speaker’s subjective self, whereas makai and kanrelate it to elements in objective reality that can be observed.

4.3 EXPERIENCE-BASED ANTICIPATIVE NECESSITY. Finally, Kanaka-navu shows a unique modal expression that relates the speaker’s anticipation regarding acertain type of event to the factual status of the proposition. Consider first the expressionmasiraru ‘have always’, as shown in (32) below, which encodes the fact that the state ofaffairs expressed in the verbs that follow is an instantiation of a type of event that has beenroutinely realized in the past, to the extent that its occurrence at any time period would bestrongly anticipated. Here, masiraru ‘have always’ precedes a fully inflected clause thatexpresses a proposition that is asserted to be true, and may involve events that are in the past(32a), present (32b), or future (32c). Through masiraru ‘have always’, the speaker marksthe legitimate occurrence of the event and a lack of surprise, due to his or her past experi-ence with that event.

(32) a. Masiraru ni-aramia’ʉ=cu sua manu mia araciasin.have.always PFV- AV.wake.up=INCH NOM child before sunrise‘The children got up before sunrise.’ (Of course. It’s always been so!)

b. Masiraru putukikio sua Pani.have.always work NOM PN

‘Pani works.’ (Not surprisingly, as he has always been a diligent person.)c. Masiraru tia tarasangai nguain.

have.always FUT AV.rest 3PL.NOM

‘They will (definitely) take some rest.’ (Of course, as it is time thatthey rest according to their schedule.)

It is interesting that when what is observed by the speaker does not match his or herexpectations—that is, when there is a clash between what is perceived and what is antici-pated, based on past experience—a modal meaning ‘of necessity’, translatable as


‘should’, arises in the use of masiraru ‘have always’. In this case, the speaker expressesan anticipation that is fully licensed by his or her past experience, whereby the factual sta-tus of the proposition, despite its not being true, is strongly necessitated to be true—hencethe label anticipative necessity. Consider the following examples, where the modal inter-pretation arises in contexts of abnormal weather conditions, as in (33a), violated humanpropensity, as in (33b), and discontinued tradition, as in (33c).25

(33) a. Masiraru ’esi ’umo’ucaan.have.always PROG AV.rain‘It should be raining (because it always has rained at this time of year)!’

b. Masiraru po-kari-kari Kanakanavu nguain.have.always utter-RED-speech PN 3SG.NOM

‘He should speak Kanakanavu (because he always did)!’c. Masiraru kaisisi sua Kanakanavu.

have.always river.ceremony NOM PN

‘The Kanakanavu people should hold the river ceremony (becauseit’s an old tradition)!’

In this regard, masiraru ‘have always’ also serves as an expression that involves ahigh degree of subjectivity, as the speaker’s own past experience is necessarily evoked inregard to the factual status of the proposition.

As summarized in table 6 below, the four expressions of Propositional modality canbe distinguished based on (i) the interpretation of the proposition expressed by the post-modal verbs, and (ii) the degree of subjectivity involved.

4.4 PROPOSITIONAL MODALITY CONSTRUCTIONS AND THEPROPOSITIONAL FRAME. While the expressions of Event modality involveverb serialization, the expressions of Propositional modality show several properties thatare distinguished from those of proposition-level main predicates in the clause, includingevent-modifying predicates (expressions of Event modality and manner adverbials) andpredicates that involve biclausal structures (expressions that take clausal complements).

25. The two interpretations ‘have always’ and ‘should’ are not characterized by any phonologicalor morphosyntactic differences. It is solely the context that determines which meaning isencoded. As long as the anticipation/experience mismatch occurs in the context, the examplesin (32) may also be interpreted as denoting modal ‘should’. Therefore, (32a) would be trans-lated as ‘The children should have got up before sunrise’, (32b) as ‘Pani should work’, and(32c) as ‘They should take some rest’, if what is observed is contrary to the speaker’s anticipa-tion—that is, the children are still sleeping in (32a); Pani is surprisingly lazy in (32b); andpeople are not resting according to their schedule in (32c).

TABLE 6. EXPRESSIONS OF PROPOSITIONAL MODALITYIN KANAKANAVU

Modalexpressions

makai‘resemble/seem’

kan‘perhaps’

manasu‘probably’

masiraru‘have always/should’

Interpretationof postmodal verbs

Inference directly related

to observedevidence

Inference indirectly related

to observedevidence

Pure supposition based on

knowledge or experience

Anticipation licensed byexperience

Subjectivity Low (Evidence-driven)

High(Knowledge/Experience-based)


On the one hand, the four expressions of Propositional modality are not subject tovoice alternation, nor do they interact with tense-aspect marking in the clause, which issemantically tied to the events that are expressed by the postmodal verbs. As can be seenin (34) below, although aspectual clitics may optionally climb up to be attached to makai‘seem’, manasʉ ‘probably’, and masiraru ‘have always’ (not, however, to kan ‘per-haps’), they are obligatorily interpreted as applying to the postmodal verb rather than tothe modal expression, hence the unacceptability of the paraphrases *It now seems/*It isstill possible/*It is now probable/*It is now necessary that … .

(34) a. Makai=cu=kasu tia k<um>a-kʉʉn.resemble=INCH=2SG.NOM FUT <AV>Ca-eat‘It seems that you will now eat.’ (‘*It now seems that ...’)

b. Kan(*=pa) sima-sima’ʉ(=pa) sua Mu’u.perhaps=CONT RED-AV.play=CONT=Q NOM PN

‘Perhaps Mu’u is (still) playing around.’ (‘*It is still possible that ... ’)c. Manasʉ=cu=kasu tia mookusa ’umo’uma.

probably=INCH=2SG.NOM FUT AV.go field‘You probably will now go into the fields.’ (‘*It is now probable that ...’)

d. Masiraru=cu=kasu ni-k<um>ʉʉn tammi.have.always=INCH=2SG.NOM PFV-<AV>eat sweet.potato‘You should have already eaten sweet potatoes.’ (‘*It is now neces-sary that ...’)

On the other hand, the four modal expressions cannot occur in interrogative and nega-tive constructions. As can be seen in (35) below, the question clitic =kara is only compati-ble with the nonmodal interpretation of masiraru ‘have always’. The occurrence of =karawith the other three expressions would make the whole clause uninterpretable, hence theanomalous paraphrases ?Does it seem / ?Is it possible / ?Is it probable /?Should it.

(35) a. Makai(?=kara) tia k<um>a-kʉʉn.resemble=Q FUT <AV>Ca-eat‘It seems that you are going to eat.’ (?‘Does it seem that ... ?’)

b. Kan sima-sima’ʉ=pa(?=kara) sua Mu’u.perhaps RED- AV.play=CONT=Q NOM PN

‘Perhaps Mu’u is still playing around.’ (?‘Is it possible that ... ?’)c. Manasʉ(?=kara) tia mookusa ’umo’uma sua Pani.

probably=Q FUT AV.go field NOM PN

‘Pani is probably going to go into the fields.’ (?‘Is it probable that ... ?’)d. Masiraru=kara ’esi ’umo’ucaan.

have.always=Q PROG AV.rain‘Is it raining (as it always did)?’ (?‘Should it be raining?’)

As for negative constructions, the negation marker ka’aan can only follow the clause-initial modal expressions to negate the postmodal verbs, and never outscope the fourmodal expressions to negate the propositional modality being expressed. The onlyexpression that appears to have a negated counterpart is manasʉ ‘probably’, which, how-


ever, does not involve a negated probability sense (that is, *improbably), as in (36c′), andhence does not qualify as a negated Propositional modal expression. Consider:

(36) a. (*Ka’aan) makai (ka’aan) paracani sua Pani. NEG resemble NEG AV.sing NOM PN

‘It seems that Pani is (not) going to sing.’ (*‘It doesn’t seem that ...’)b. (*Ka’aan) kan (ka’aan) sima-sima’ʉ sua Mu’u.

NEG perhaps NEG RED-play NOM PN

‘Perhaps Mu’u is (not) playing around.’ (*‘It is not probable that ...’)c. Manasʉ ka’aan mookusa ’umo’uma sua Pani.

probably NEG AV.go field NOM PN

‘Pani is probably not going into the fields.’c′. Ka’aan manasʉ mookusa ’umo’uma sua Pani.

NEG probably AV.go field NOM PN

‘It is not certain that Pani is going into the fields.’ (*‘Improbably, ...’)d. (*Ka’aan) masiraru (ka’aan) putukikio sua Pani.

NEG have.always NEG AV.work NOM PN

‘Pani should (not) be working (because he never does).’ (*‘Itshouldn’t be that...’)

In this regard, the expressions of Propositional modality in Kanakanavu appear toshow properties that are analogous to those of the English modal adverbs (for example,probably, possibly, evidently), the latter being distinguished from modal adjectives (thatis, probable, possible, evident) with regard to their interactions with question and nega-tion. According to Bellert (1977), the English modal adverbs serve as “predicates of thetruth,” as do also question and negation. Therefore, one does not evaluate the probabilityof the truth of a proposition while at the same time questioning or negating it, whichwould result in the semantic incompatibility shown in (37). The modal adjectives, in con-trast, are concerned with the states of affairs, or events, and hence are able to be ques-tioned and negated, as in (38).

(37) a. John has {probably/possibly/evidently} come.b. ?Has John {probably/possibly/evidently} come?c. ?{Improbably/Impossibly/Not evidently}, John has come.

(Bellert 1977)(38) a. It is {probable/possible/evident} that John has come.

b. Is it {probable/possible/evident} that John has come?c. It is {improbable/impossible/not evident} that John has come.

(Bellert 1977)

Accordingly, the expressions of Propositional modality in Kanakanavu, which alsoserve as predicates of the truth, as illustrated in (35) and (36), are necessarily distin-guished from clause-initial main predicates, which are concerned with events or statesof affairs, the latter serving as predicates that may be questioned and negated: these areexemplified by Event modality constructions, as in (39), and manner adverbial expres-sions, as in (40).


(39) a. Tavarʉ’ʉ / make’enanu / teni=kara=cu=ku mo-tanasa?AV.know / be.allowed / enough=Q=1SG.NOM=INCH go-house‘Can/may I go home now?’ (Is it possible for me to go home now?)

b. Ka’aan tavarʉ’ʉ putukikio sua Pani.26

NEG AV.know AV.work NOM PN

‘Pani cannot work.’ (It is not possible for Pani to work.)(40) a. Mara’an=kara pocipi camai sua Paicʉ?

AV.fast=Q AV.cook meal NOM PN

‘Does Paicʉ cook fast?’b. Ka’aan mara’an pocipi camai sua Paicʉ.

NEG AV.fast AV.cook meal NOM PN

‘Paicʉ doesn’t cook fast.’

Given the above observations, it follows that despite their clause-initial positions, theexpressions of Propositional modality do not occupy the main predicate slot of the clause, butserve as speaker-oriented, metalinguistic adverbial predicates. They are located outside of thepropositional frame constituted by the postmodal verbs. The truth of the proposition is in turnpredicated by the preceding modal expressions, as is illustrated in the analysis in (41).

(41) Makai / kan / manasʉ / masiraru [si’icʉpʉ sua Pani]PROP.FRAME.resemble / perhaps / probably / have.always AV.sleep NOM PN

‘Pani seems to be/is perhaps/is probably/should be sleeping.’

The Propositional modality constructions are, therefore, distinguished from construc-tions that exhibit biclausal structures, the latter involving the main predicate taking aclausal complement, both of which are elements occurring within the propositionalframe, hence subject to question and negation. Consider, for example, the verb atʉnʉng‘remember’, which serves as the initial main predicate of the clause taking a clausal com-plement, as in (42a). Examples (42b) and (42c) show the compatibility of atʉnʉng‘remember’ with question and negation, in clear contrast to the incompatibility of Propo-sitional modal expressions with question (35) and negation (36).

(42) a. Atʉnʉng=ku [tia mookusa ’umo’uma nura]CLAUSE.AV.remember=1SG.NOM FUT AV.go field tomorrow‘I remember that (I’m) going to go into the fields tomorrow.’

b. Atʉnʉng=kara=kasu tia mookusa ’umo’uma nura?AV.remember=Q=2SG.NOM FUT AV.go field tomorrow‘Do you remember that (you’re) going to go into the fields tomorrow?’

c. Ka’aan=kasu atʉnʉng [tia mookusa umo’uma nura].NEG=2SG.NOM AV.remember FUT AV.go field tomorrow‘You don’t remember that (you’re) going to go into the fields tomorrow.’

4.5 INTERIM SUMMARY. So far, we have provided a comprehensive analysis ofthe expressions of modality in Kanakanavu, including three expressions of Event modal-26. Note that negation does not cooccur with make’enanu ‘no problem’ and teni ‘enough’, which,

however, does not render them semantically incompatible with negation. Our informants wouldprovide ka’aan tavarʉ’ʉ when asked for negated counterparts of make’enanu ‘be allowed’ andteni ‘enough’ (that is, may not and cannot). The incompatibility may, therefore, be structural,and not semantic.


ity and four expressions of Propositional modality. To summarize, the two sets of expres-sions can be distinguished on semantic and morphosyntactic grounds. On the one hand,the expressions of Event modality are identified as propositional-level predicates that con-cern the potential status of irrealis events, each specifying a type of future possibility vis-à-vis event participants. In an Event modality construction, the modal expression serves asthe main predicate of the clause, attracting clitics and tense-aspect marking, whereas thepostmodal verbs are morphologically defective in some way, being unavailable for furthertense-aspect marking, and manifesting three types of verb serialization.

The Propositional modal expressions, on the other hand, constitute an epistemic-evidential system that encodes the speaker’s attitude toward the truth of the proposition.In contrast to the situation in Event modality constructions, the Propositional modalexpressions occur sentence-initially, and predicate on the factual status of the proposi-tion constituted by the postmodal verbs that are marked for voice and tense-aspect. Inthis regard, the Propositional modal expressions do not serve as main predicates of theclause, nor do they involve verb serialization. Instead, they serve as speaker-orientedadverbial predicates. The properties of the modal expressions in Kanakanavu are sum-marized in table 7.

5. TOWARD A TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION. In the pre-ceding two sections, we have examined the semantic and morphosyntactic properties ofthe expressions of modality in Kanakanavu. This section is devoted to examining howmodality in Kanakanavu should be typologically characterized with regard to commonlyobserved sense extension patterns and the functional organization of modal systems.Specifically, we draw from several studies that provide cross-linguistic surveys on devel-opment of modal expressions, and focus on the expression in Kanakanavu of two centralnotions of modality—possibility and necessity27—discussing both with reference tofamiliar European languages and four other Formosan languages—Tsou, Mayrinax Ata-yal, Seediq, and Saisiyat.28

TABLE 7. MODAL EXPRESSIONS IN KANAKANAVU†

† Abbreviations in the first column are: (a) nonmodal lexical use; (b) voice alterna-tion; (c) AV-only restriction on postmodal verbs; (d) tense-aspect marking on modalexpression; (e) tense-aspect marking on postmodal verbs; (f) clitic attraction; (g)questionability; (h) negatability

EVENT MODALITY PROPOSITIONAL MODALITYWithin the propositional frame Outside the propositional frame

tavarʉ’ʉ make’enanu teni makai kan manasʉ masiraru(a) yes yes yes yes NO NO yes(b) yes NO NO NO NO NO NO(c) yes yes NO NO NO NO NO(d) yes yes yes NO NO NO NO(e) no no no yes yes yes yes(f) yes yes yes optional optional NO optional(g) yes yes yes NO NO NO (NO)(h) yes (NO) (NO) NO NO NO NO

SVC (A) SVC (B) SVC (C) Non-SVC


5.1 THE EXPRESSION OF POSSIBILITY. In 3.1, we identified tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’as a modal expression that encodes both participant-internal and participant-external possi-bility. The functions of tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ indicate that it has followed a path that is widelyobserved cross-linguistically, as reported by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994), wherebymodal expressions of ability (participant-internal possibility) undergo semantic generaliza-tion and develop a root possibility (participant-external possibility) meaning. As can be seenin (43) below, the process may be characterized as the loss of the specific semantic featuresmental and in the agent in the modality expressed (based on Bybee 1988).

(43) (i) mental enabling conditions exist in the agent (mental ability)(ii) enabling conditions exist in the agent (physical ability)(iii) enabling conditions exist (root possibility)

In addition, expressions of root possibility often involve further sense extension anddevelop epistemic meanings as well (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994; van der Auw-era and Plungian 1998; Traugott and Dasher 2002). The three levels of possibility areexemplified by English can in (44).

(44) a. I can walk far, Mister Brook. I can walk all the way to the mine.(Coates 1983:89) (participant-internal possibility)

b. I think there is a place where I can get a cheap kettle. (Coates 1983:95)(participant-external possibility)

c. You can’t have lifted fifty pounds. (Sweetser 1990:62)(epistemic modality)

The most commonly documented lexical source for ability in Bybee, Perkins, andPagliuca’s (1994) database is a verb with the cognition sense of ‘know’. However, inKanakanavu, tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ only denotes participant-internal and participant-externalpossibility, and not epistemic modality. Nevertheless, this does not appear to be a typo-logical characteristic of Formosan languages, as various manifestations of sense exten-sion in possibility expressions are found across five Formosan languages. To begin with,meelʉ ‘able’ in Tsou shows disparities from Kanakanavu tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, as it is notsemantically derived from the cognition sense ‘know’. As can be seen in (45) below,meelʉ ‘able’ does not stand alone as an independent verb, and has to precede anotherverb in expressing the ability meaning. The cognition sense ‘know’ is denoted by a dif-ferent verb bochio ‘know’, as in (46), which does not encode modality.29

27. We only compare the two notions because they are traditionally established as central tomodality as a semantic category in literature (Lyons 1977:787; van der Auwera and Plungian1998:80) where there is a considerable amount of data and generalizations available for com-parison with Kanakanavu.

28. The four Formosan languages are chosen for comparison due to the authors’ familiarity withthem and the availability of data that support analysis. The Formosan data presented in thissection are drawn from our own field notes unless otherwise noted.

29. The initial m/p allomorphy (as in meelʉ/peelʉ) instantiates a commonly observed Formosan verbclass that may be attributed to historical derivation from AV *<um> being attached to complexstems starting with *pa-, resulting in initial *ma- (Ross 2002:34). The verb class is characterizedby verb roots that alternate between initial /m/ in AV and initial /p/ in NAV forms.


(45) TSOU meelʉ ‘able’a. Mi meelʉ *(mooyai) emoo ’e Mo’o.

AUX AV.able AV.make house NOM PN

‘Mo’o is able to build houses.’b. I-si peelʉ-i te’ay-i to Mo’o ’o emoo.

AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN able-LV make-LV OBL PN NOM house‘Mo’o is able to build houses.’

(46) TSOU bochio (AV)/cohivi (LV) ‘know’a. bochio (AV)/cohivi (LV) ‘know’ taking nominal complements

Os-’o cohivi ’o hohamva.AUX.NAV-1SG.GEN AV.know NOM story‘I know the story.’

b. bochio (AV)/cohivi (LV) ‘know’ taking clausal complementsOs-’o cohivi ho te mooyai emoo ’e Pasuya.AUX.NAV-1SG.GEN know.LV COMP IRR AV.make house NOM PN

‘I know that Pasuya is going to build a house.’b′. I-si cohivi to Pasuya te eyainenu na te hia

AUX.NAV-3SG.GEN know.LV OBL PN IRR how NOM IRR reallyte’ay-i ’e emoo.make.LV NOM house‘Pasuya *is able/knows how to build the house.’

Similar to Kanakanavu tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, Tsou meelʉ ‘able’ also shows sense extensionin having developed a root possibility meaning from the ability sense. As can be seen below,meelʉ ‘able’ in (47) differs from (45) as the former predicates on the enabling factors exter-nal to the participants involved. The root possibility sense is especially salient when the irrea-lis future marker te is present (47a), or when the verb is in NAV form peela ‘able.PV’ (47b).

(47) TSOU meelʉ ‘able’ encoding root possibilitya. Te meelʉ mooyai ’e Mo’o.

IRR AV.able AV.make NOM PN

‘Mo’o can build houses.’ (He couldn’t before because he had otherthings to do.)

b. La-’u peel-a te’ya-i teesi ’o ngesi.HAB-1SG.GEN able-PV make-LV rope NOM sisal‘The sisal can be made into rope by me.’

On the other hand, vaq ‘know’ in Mayrinax Atayal shows sense extension from cog-nition to participant-internal possibility (ability), but not further to participant-externalpossibility (root possibility) or epistemic modality (Cheng 2013). As can be seen below,the lexical use of vaq ‘know’ (48a) involves a following accusative noun phrase, whereasits modal use (48b) involves an AV-only verb phrase complement that follows it.30 Partic-ipant-external possibility in the language is denoted by another modal expression—musa’ valaiq ‘may’ (literally ‘go good’), as in (48d).

30. Verb phrase complements in Mayrinax Atayal are characterized by a preceding linker i(Huang 1995).


(48) MAYRINAX ATAYALa. Vaq su waw hani i Hayung.

know ACC matter this NEU Hayung‘Hayung knows this matter.’ (Cheng 2013:48)

b. Vaq i k<um>aal su kai’ na itaal i Hayung.know LNK <AV>speak ACC word GEN PN NEU Hayung‘Hayung is able to speak the language of the Atayal people.’

(Cheng 2013:50)c. *Vaq i kal-un su kai’ na itaal i Hayung.

know LNK speak-PV ACC word GEN PN NEU Hayung

d. Musa’ valaiq i niq-un ku vunga’ la.AV.go good LNK eat-PV NOM sweet.potato PART

‘The sweet potato may be eaten now!’ (Cheng 2013:64)

Two other Formosan languages, in contrast, manifest the full pattern exhibited byEnglish can in (44). Consider first the cognition verb mkela ‘know’ in Seediq. Serving asthe main predicate of the clause, it denotes the cognition sense when used as the solepredicate of the clause, as in (49a), or it expresses the modality of possibility when fol-lowed by a verb phrase complement, as in (49b) and (49c), which exemplify participant-internal and participant-external possibility, respectively.

(49) SEEDIQa. Kla-un=mu Songlaoshi.

know-PV=1SG.GEN Professor.Sung‘I know Professor Sung.’ (Lexical/Cognition)

b. M-kela=ku t<m>lenga.AV-know=1SG.NOM <AV>set.up.trap‘I am able to set up traps.’ (Modal/Participant-internal)

c. Ini kela m-ekan siyang na cbeyo.NEG know AF-eat pork PART past‘We couldn’t eat pork in the past.’ (Modal/Participant-external)

In addition to its use as an expression of Event modality, mkela ‘know’ can also havea propositional scope, and extends to encode epistemic modality, or probability. As can beseen in (50) below, the NAV form of the verb—klaun—can occur in clause-initial posi-tion with scope over the fully inflected clause that follows. Note that in this case, klaun‘know’ is clearly not the main predicate of the clause, as it does not show semantic roleagreement with the grammatical subject, but serves as an expression that occurs in theleft-peripheral position.

(50) SEEDIQKla-un [wada tg-leing sapi=na ka qpatun nii].know-PV PFV.AUX TG-AV.hide shoe=3SG.GEN NOM frog this‘This frog may have hidden itself in his shoes.’ (Modal/Epistemic)

Similarly, ra:am ‘know’ in Saisiyat also manifests the full sense extension pattern(Yeh 2012). The use of ra:am ‘know’ as the main predicate of the clause can express thecognition (51a), participant-internal (51b), and participant-external (51c) meanings.


(51) SAISIYATa. ... hiza’ korkoring ra:am komoSa: boya’ ...(0.9) a==

that child know.AF fiL bee fiL

’<om>aseng ka mae’iyaeh sia ... masroko’.<AF>sting ACC man 3SG.NOM bend.down.AF

‘… the child knew the bees sting, and he bent down.’ (Lexical/Cognition)(Frog 6, NTU Corpus; Sung et al. 2008, Su et al. 2008, cited from Yeh

2012)b. yako ra:am kiSka:at.

1SG.NOM know.AF read‘I can read.’ (Modal/Participant-internal) (Yeh 2012)

c. kat’et’en bilis-in ray hima’ pon’a:iS-in ka ta’oeloehclick.beetles hold-PF LOC hand touch-PF ACC headra:am tom’en.AF.know nod‘If a click beetle is held in the hand and touched at the head, (it) willnod.’ (Modal/Participant-external) (Yeh 2012)

Similar to Seediq klaun ‘know’, the PV form ra:amen ‘know/can’ can also occur inthe left-peripheral position and function as an epistemic expression regarding the truth ofthe proposition that follows, denoting epistemic inference, as in (52a), or the speaker’suncertainty, as in (52b). Again, ra:amen ‘know/can’ does not show agreement with thegrammatical subject of the clause.

(52) SAISIYATa. ... ma’an ’ae’ay hayza’ ka ramo’ ra:am-en ’oes’oes-en

1SG.GEN leg have ACC blood know-PF suck-PF

noka wili’.GEN leech‘There is blood on my leg; maybe (I was) sucked by a leech.’ (Yeh 2012)

b. tata:a’ sisiyap S<in>pan haw-hawka’ ra:am-en nokachicken chick <PFV>raise RED-disappear know-PF GEN

kakmo:ak si’ael-en.eagle eat-PF

‘The chicks raised keep disappearing; maybe they are eaten by theeagles.’ (Yeh 2012)

Accordingly, in the expression of possibility, Kanakanavu tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ contraststypologically with meelʉ ‘able’ in Tsou, vaq ‘know’ in Mayrinax Atayal, mkela ‘know’in Seediq, and ra:am ‘know’ in Saisiyat. Although all five expressions instantiate thesame sense extension path of possibility (ability > root possibility > epistemic modality),they exhibit different degrees of extension with regard to the path. Figure 1 illustrates thetypological characterization of tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’ in contrast to the other four languages’possibility expressions.

5.2 THE EXPRESSION OF NECESSITY. In the literature, the expression ofnecessity in modality has generally been associated with the notion of obligation (deonticnecessity) and high epistemic certainty (epistemic necessity) (Palmer 2001; van der


Auwera and Ammann 2005). Generally considered a subtype of Event modality, obliga-tion refers to the concepts of duty or social norms that compel the realization of someirrealis event, in contrast to allowed or possible events, as shown in (53).

(53) a. You can leave. (You are allowed to leave: possibility)b. You should leave. (You are compelled to leave: necessity)

Typologically, obligation is also related to the concept of physical, or participant-internal, necessity or need, which tends to develop a more generalized, deontic mean-ing, as shown in the polysemy of need in English, as in (54), and the use of behar‘need’ in Basque, as in (55).

(54) I need to go to the restaurant now.a. My hunger compels me to do so: physical necessityb. My work as a clerk at the restaurant compels me to do so: obligation

(55) BASQUEa. Diru-a behar d-u-t.

money-DET need PRES-AUX-1.SG.ERG

‘I need money.’ (Participant-internal necessity)b. Etxe-ra joan behar d-u-t.

house-ALL go[PFV] need PRES-AUX-1.SG.ERG

‘I have to go home.’ (Obligation)(Heine and Kuteva 2002:216)

High epistemic certainty, on the other hand, is a manifestation of Propositional modal-ity, and refers to the speaker’s high confidence, or inferred certainty, in making a judg-ment concerning the truth of a proposition, which might be construed as a “necessary/compelled conclusion” (Sweetser 1990). High epistemic certainty is widely observed tobe denoted by expressions of obligation, as in (56), which shows the deontic and epis-temic uses of German müssen ‘must’.

(56) GERMANa. Er muss sofort kommen.

he must instantly come‘He has to come immediately.’ (Deontic necessity)

FIGURE 1. POSSIBILITY EXPRESSIONS INFIVE FORMOSAN LANGUAGES†

Mayrinax Atayal vaq cognition > abilityKanakanavu tavarʉ’ʉ cognition > ability > root possibilityTsou meelʉ ability > root possibilitySeediq mkela cognition > ability > root possibility > epistemicSaisiyat ra:am cognition > ability > root possibility > epistemic

† Note, in particular, that there is a tendency for the root possibility meaning to bemore salient in NAV forms of the possibility expressions, and that epistemic mean-ings are always encoded by NAV forms only. The path “ability > root possibility >epistemic,” therefore, forms a continuum, where the left end is occupied by AV verbforms, and the right end by NAV verb forms.


b. Er muss gestern gekommen sein.he must yesterday come be‘He must have come yesterday.’ (Epistemic necessity)

(based on Heine and Kuteva 2002:219)

Nevertheless, none of the notions discussed above appear to be involved in theexpression of necessity in Kanakanavu. For one thing, there are virtually no lexical verbsin the language that denote need, duty, or obligation, the three common conceptual basesfor expressions of deontic necessity. As can be seen in (57) below, these meanings canonly be implied in Kanakanavu through the use of the future marker tia and the adverbcucuru ‘really’ with first person singular subject to signal the necessary realization of anirrealis event.31 Furthermore, as discussed in 4.2, the speaker’s epistemic confidence canbe expressed through manasʉ ‘probably’, depending on context, and is not related to theconcept of obligation in any way.

(57) Cucuru tia mookusa Taibei sua iiku.really FUT AV.go PN NOM 1SG.NOM

‘I am really going to Taipei!’ (I need to/must go to Taipei.)

In this regard, masiraru ‘have always’ in Kanakanavu seems to represent a typologi-cally unique case of necessity, whereby the speaker’s past experience, and not need, duty,or obligation, is essential in giving rise to the necessity meaning ‘should’ beingexpressed. In Kanakanavu, the meaning ‘should’ is strongly tied to the speaker’s antici-pation arising out of his or her past experience with the type of event being modalitypredicated, as discussed in 4.3. In particular, the rise of the necessity meaning ‘should’lies in the mismatch between the speaker’s anticipation (due to the event’s habitual reali-zation in the past) and the reality (the event’s not occurring).

Interestingly, this rarely attested type of necessity notion (which we labeled anticipa-tive necessity in 4.3) is found to be shared by at least three other Formosan languages:Tsou, Mayrinax Atayal, and Seediq. Consider first the three expressions—irrealis markernte in Tsou (58),32 naki ‘was going to’ in Mayrinax Atayal (59), and naka ‘was going to’in Seediq (60)—all of which refer to the nature of a nonoccurring event that had beenplanned to be carried out in the past, but somehow never occurred. Like Kanakanavumasiraru ‘have always’, the three expressions precede the main predicate of the clause,occurring in the clause-initial position. In Tsou, there is a semantic distinction betweentwo forms nte and nto, based on the difference in temporal distance of the planned eventfrom the present moment, as in (58a) and (58b). No such distinction is found in the othertwo languages, as in (59) and (60).

31. However, the meaning expressed is more emphatic than modal, and refers mainly to thespeaker’s emphasis on his or her truthfulness in uttering the sentence.

32. We follow Huang and Huang (2003) in glossing nte/nto in Tsou as an irrealis marker. Thetwo have been well documented to mark hypotheticality and counterfactuality in condi-tional clauses (Zeitoun 2000:105‒6), being distinguished from the nonhypothetical irrea-lis marker te. On the other hand, nte/nto have been glossed as ‘should’ or ‘ought to’ byHuang and Huang (2003:23) who, however, do not mention their reference to plannedevents in the past.


(58) TSOU nte/ntoa. Nte-’o hioa mi-ta-cu hioa.

IRR-1SG.NOM AV.work AV.AUX-3SG.NOM-PFV AV.work‘I was going to do (the work). (But) he did it (instead).’

b. Nto-’u hioa mi-ta-cu hioa.IRR-1SG.NOM AV.work AV.AUX-3SG.NOM-PFV AV.work‘(Long ago,) I was going to do (the work). (But) he did it (instead).’

(59) MAYRINAX ATAYAL naki ‘was going’ a. Naki i m<in>usa’ i q<um>aluwap i Kaynu’.

was.going.to LNK <PFV> AV.go LNK <AV>hunt NOM PN

‘Kaynu’ was going to go hunting (but somehow he didn’t).’b. Naki=mu i pa-muwa’-an su giluk ku rauq.

was.going.to=1SG.GEN LNK CAUS-plant-LV ACC strawberry NOM field‘I was going to plant the field with strawberries (but I didn’t)’.

(Cheng 2013:74)(60) SEEDIQ naka

a. Ma=su ini durun han? Naka=su krngiy-an.how.come=2SG.NOM NEG tell first was.going.to=1SG.NOM reserve-LV

‘Why didn’t you tell (me) in advance? (I) would have reserved(one) for you.’

b. Naka naku ka dheran ga phma-an qulic mawas.going.to 1SG.GEN NOM land PROG plant-LV Chinese.fir thens<m>daku ka tama=su.<AV>preempt NOM father=2SG.GEN

‘The land that is planted with Chinese fir trees was going to be mine,but your father took it forcefully.’

Like the routine realization of past events in the semantics of Kanakanavu masiraru‘have always’, the planned nature of past events in these three expressions also arouses asimilar type of speaker anticipation that, when foregrounded by context, contradicts thereality, thereby yielding the anticipative necessity meaning ‘should’. Consider:

(61) a. TSOU irrealis marker nteNte-’o bonʉ to s’os’o.IRR-1SG.NOM AV.eat OBL medicine‘I should take the medicine (since I was going to).’Planned event in the past: speaker taking medicineAnticipation: speaker already taking medicineReality: speaker not taking any medicine yet

b. MAYRINAX ATAYAL naki ‘was going to’Naki i m<in>vaynay su timu i Limuy aqihwas.going.to LNK <PFV> AV.trade ACC salt NOM PN badgi ungi-’an=nia’ la.CONJ forget-LV=3SG.GEN PART

‘Limuy should have bought some salt. But unfortunately she hadforgotten.’ (Cheng 2013:7)


Planned event in the past: Limuy buying saltAnticipation: salt already bought by LimuyReality: Limuy forgetting to buy salt

c. SEEDIQ naka ‘was going to’Naka=ku naq m-eyah ciga. Yah-un=ku=nawas.going.to=1SG.NOM only AV-come yesterday come-PV=1SG.NOM=3SG.GEN

s<m>gila de-Pawan.<AV>tarry PL-PN

‘I should have come yesterday. I was held up by Pawan and them.’Planned event in the past: speaker comingAnticipation: speaker already here the day beforeReality: speaker not here until speech time

Tsou nte/nto and Seediq naka ‘was going to’ show further sense extension into gen-eral necessity, in which the modal meaning becomes more speaker-oriented—concernedwith the speaker’s own subjective preference rather than the objective fact about theevent, (that is, its being planned in the past)— as can be seen in (62). The extended mean-ing may also encompass the prototypical necessity meaning of obligation as well, as in(63). In this regard, Tsou nte/nto and Seediq naka ‘was going to’ contrast sharply withKanakanavu masiraru ‘have always’ and Mayrinax naki ‘was going to’, as the latter twoare still tied to the speaker’s anticipation, and no salient obligation meaning is available.

(62) a. TSOU irrealis marker nteMi-ta kʉehoi nte-ta akei otmucu.AV.AUX-3SG.NOM AV.thin IRR-3SG.NOM a.little AV.eat.a.lot‘He is thin. He should eat more.’Speaker’s preference: the person being heavier

b. SEEDIQ naka ‘was going to’Naka=su mesa, “Asi des-i kanna han peni!”was.going.to=2SG.NOM AV.say just take-PV.IMP all first PART

Ma=su so s-<n>bserux ha?how.come=2SG.NOM be.like CV-<PFV>lazy PART

‘You should have said, “Just take them all!”. How come you wereso troublesome?’Speaker’s preference: the person having said “Just take them all!”

(63) a. TSOU nte expressing obligationMa oko no Cou ma nte-ta boa Cou.EVI child OBL PN EVI IRR-3SG.NOM AV.speak PN

‘He is a descendant of Tsou. He should speak Tsou.’b. SEEDIQ naka ‘was going to’ expressing obligation

Niq-an kes-un, “P-ta-alix ka seediq!”? Naka=sube.at-LV say-PV CAUS-TA-abandon NOM person was.going.to=2SG.GEN

kes-un, “Iya so kiya!”say-PV NEG be.like that‘Would anyone say, “Get a divorce!”? You should say, “Don’t do that!”.’

Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the four Formosan languages dis-cussed in this subsection manifest a unique typological category of necessity—labeled


Anticipative necessity here. Contrasting with the necessity expressions associated withobligation or high certainty that have been observed in many familiar languages, a differ-ent conceptual import—reference to an event’s (routine/planned) realization in the past—is involved. The typological characterization of the four necessity expressions discussedin this subsection can be illustrated with the sense extension path in figure 2.

5.3 FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MODALITY IN KANAKANAVU.One of the most widely discussed topics concerning linguistic modality is the formal andsemantic relationships of epistemic expressions with expressions of other modal catego-ries. As can be seen from the previous two subsections, epistemic meanings (in both pos-sibility and necessity) tend to develop from meanings that fall under the category ofEvent modality. This is represented by the combined path illustrated in figure 3, wherebyepistemic modality is a semantic domain that exhibits a strong bond with the domain ofevent modality that serves as the source for sense/functional extension.

The strong relationship between the two domains is a commonly observed phenome-non in most European languages (van der Auwera and Ammann 2005), where modalsystems tend to consist of formally definable sets of expressions that encode modality ofboth semantic domains. The English modal auxiliaries reflect a prototypical system.Example (64) below shows cases of may, should, and must, all of which may be inter-preted as encoding either event modality or epistemic modality.

(64) a. He may come tomorrow. (He is allowed to come/He will probablycome.)

b. The book should be on the shelf. (It is compelled to be there/It isprobably there.)

c. He must be in his office. (He has an obligation to be there/It ishighly probable that he is there.)

(based on Palmer 2001:86)

In Kanakanavu, however, expressions that can be considered as having event modalmeanings (tavarʉ’ʉ ‘know’, make’enanu ‘no problem’, and teni ‘enough’) are notattested to have developed epistemic meanings. Instead of reflecting the strong associa-tion between event modality and epistemic modality, Kanakanavu appears to exhibit two

FIGURE 2. ANTICIPATIVE NECESSITY EXPRESSIONS INFOUR FORMOSAN LANGUAGES

Kanakanavu masiraru routine realization in the past > anticipative necessityMayrinax Atayal naki planned realization in the past > anticipative necessityTsou nte planned realization > anticipative > generalSeediq naka in the past necessity necessity

FIGURE 3. DEVELOPMENTAL PATH FROM EVENT MODALITYTO EPISTEMIC MODALITY

ability > root possibility > epistemic modalityphysical necessity > obligation > epistemic modality

event modality


independent systems of modality, one comprising verbs that show functions of encodingevent modality, and the other comprising speaker-oriented adverbial predicates thatencode propositional modality. In this regard, the domain of epistemic modality inKanakanavu shows a stronger bond with that of evidentiality (the two constituting a for-mally definable system, as demonstrated in 4.4) than with that of Event modality.

Having established the two ways epistemic modality may be related to other catego-ries, it follows that Kanakanavu would contrast typologically with familiar European lan-guages such as English in how modal expressions are functionally organized aroundthree semantic domains—event modality, epistemic modality, and evidentiality. For onething, the European/English-type modal system involves event modality and epistemicmodality forming a larger, salient domain that receives unified coding by the modal aux-iliaries. For another, the Kanakanavu-type modal system involves epistemic modalityforming a salient semantic domain with evidentiality, the two being separated from eventmodality, as the latter constitutes a domain that is coded by modal verbs involving SVC,while the former is encoded by a system of clause-initial modal predicates. The typologi-cal characterization of the modal system in Kanakanavu in relation to that in English isrepresented in the semantic map illustrated in figure 4 below.

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The present paper has endeavored to investi-gate modality as an integrated topic in Kanakanavu. As modality in Formosan languageshas generally been identified as a subtopic in past studies, we have adopted a typologicalperspective in defining modality as essentially associated with two typological catego-ries—event modality and propositional modality—which serve as a starting point forsemantic, morphosyntactic, and typological investigations into the realization of modalityas a coherent category in Kanakanavu.

With regard to the semantic aspects of modal expressions, the typological approach tomodality enables a more comprehensive understanding of the nature, and possible number,of modal categories that can be realized in the language being investigated. In contrast tothe modal labels employed for data description in past studies (for example, deontic modal-ity, root modal, semimodal), here the variations observed in the modal expressions iden-tified in Kanakanavu are analyzed based on coherent semantic terms as capable of beingmodeled by typological parameters—including the conditioning factors vis-à-vis eventparticipants (for event modality), and the degree of subjectivity involved (for propositional

FIGURE 4. SEMANTIC MAP AND MODAL SYSTEMS

epistemic modality

event modality

evidentiality

European/English-type system Kanakanavu-type system


modality). Building on the discovery that future markers in Formosan languages canexhibit modal functions (Zeitoun, Huang, and Yeh 1996; Yeh 2006), we demonstrate thatmodal expressions in a Formosan language show different interactions with tense andaspect. In particular, expressions of event modality in Kanakanavu impose irrealis, future-oriented interpretations on the verbs being modally predicated, and can be further modifiedby tense-aspect markers, whereas expressions of propositional modality are more detachedfrom tense-aspect modification in the clause due to their propositional scope.

With regard to the morphosyntactic aspects of modal expressions, our data indicate thatmodality in Kanakanavu involves constructions that are essentially different in structure,which, nevertheless, correspond to the nature of the modality being expressed. For onething, the three expressions of event modality show a certain degree of similarity to adver-bial expressions that involve verb serialization in not only Kanakanavu (Wu 2006), butalso other Formosan languages that have been examined (Chang 2006a; Yeh and Huang2009). Therefore, the expressions of event modality can be characterized as event-predi-cating categories in the language. The typological implications for the possible morpho-syntactic relationships between the expressions of event modality and expressions ofmanner/frequency in Formosan languages would, therefore, be an interesting topic forfuture research. Moreover, while past studies have identified the predicate-adjunct varia-tion observed in the morphosyntactic realization of epistemic modality in Formosan lan-guages (Hsiao 2002, Chang 2006a), we have further shown that, despite the fixed clause-initial positions of epistemic-evidential expressions in Kanakanavu, these expressions’(lack of) interaction with tense-aspect, and incompatibility with question and negation indi-cate that they do not serve as main predicates of the clause, nor do they behave like trueadjuncts. Their morphosyntactic properties as speaker-oriented metalinguistic adverbialpredicates are, therefore, of typological importance in Formosan languages for the status ofexpressions that occur in the left-peripheral position but do not exhibit adjunct properties.

Last but not least, this paper provides a typological comparison between aspects ofmodal expressions in Kanakanavu and those in other Formosan and familiar European lan-guages. On the one hand, we have identified possibility expressions in Formosan languagesthat undergo sense extension following a cross-linguistically common path. On the otherhand, the expression of necessity in Kanakanavu, Tsou, Mayrinax Atayal, and Seediq doesnot conform to what is observed in familiar European languages, in which physical neces-sity and obligation are the near-universal conceptual import for necessity expressions. Wehave established a category of anticipative necessity based on properties shared by Kanaka-navu masiraru ‘have always’, Tsou nte, Mayrinax Atayal naki ‘was going to’, and Seediqnaka, which suggests the need to examine expressions of necessity in other Formosan lan-guages—a less discussed topic in the literature—to develop a finer semantic and morpho-syntactic description and characterization. It has also been demonstrated that Kanakanavushows a dual system (Event vs. Proposition) in the expression of modality, which differstypologically from what is established in many European languages (where event-epis-temic overlap is common in modal systems). Nevertheless, the functional organization ofmodal expressions in other Formosan languages (especially those where possibility expres-sions develop epistemic meanings) is a topic that requires further examination in order toobtain a more comprehensive understanding of whether modality in Formosan languages


can be best characterized as involving a coherent semantic domain or multiple domains.Further studies on other Formosan languages that either reflect the Kanakanavu-type sys-tem or show unattested variations are, therefore, still needed.

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American

Linguistics 50:255–71.Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs.

Linguistic Inquiry 8(2):337–51.Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 1988. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning.

In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,ed. by Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster, 247–64. Berkeley: BLS.

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar:Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Chang, Henry Y. 2006a. The guest playing host: Modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan.Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, ed. by Hans-MartinGärtner, Paul Law, and Joachim Sabel, 43–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

———. 2006b. Rethinking the Tsouic subgroup hypothesis: A morphosyntactic perspective.In Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-KueiLi on his 70th birthday, ed. by Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho,565–83. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

———. 2006c. Verb sequences in some Formosan languages: SVCs or secondarypredicates? Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the InternationalAssociation of Chinese Linguistics and 10th International Symposium on ChineseLanguages and Linguistics joint meeting, Academia Sinica, Taipei.

Cheng, Yi-Yang. 2013. Modality in Mayrinax Atayal. MA thesis, National TaiwanUniversity.

Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.de Haan, Ferdinand. 1997. The interaction of negation and modality: A typological

study. PhD diss., University of Southern California.———. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest

Journal of Linguistics 18(1):83–101.———. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In The expression of modality, ed.

by William Frawley, 27–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Donaldson, Tamsin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Heine, Berndt, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. The world lexicon of grammaticalization.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar:

Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar,ed. by K. Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, 110–81. New York:Routledge.


Hsiao, Stella I-Ling. 2002. Adverbials in Squliq Atayal. MA thesis, National TsingHua University.

Huang, Huiju, and Shuanfan Huang. 2003. On the status of reality marking in Tsou.Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 1(2):1–33.

Huang, Lillian M. 1995. A study of Mayrinax syntax. Taipei: Crane.Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mei, Kuang. 1982. Pronouns and verb inflection in Kanakanavu. Tsinghua Journal of

Chinese Studies (New Series) 14:207–32.Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Roberts, John R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of

Linguistics 26(2):363–401.Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-

marking. In The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. byFay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 17–62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

———. 2012. In defense of Nuclear Austronesian (and against Tsouic). Language andLinguistics 13(6):1253–1330.

Su, Lily I-wen, Li-May Sung, Shuping Huang, Fuhui Hsieh, and Zhemin Lin. 2008.NTU corpus of Formosan languages: A state-of-the-art report. Corpus Linguisticsand Linguistic Theory 4(2):291–94.

Sung, Li-May, Lily I-wen Su, Fuhui Hsieh, and Zhemin Lin. 2008. Developing anonline corpus of Formosan languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6(2):79–118.

Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and culturalaspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. PhD diss., YaleUniversity.

van der Auwera, Johan, and Andreas Ammann. 2005. Overlap between situational andepistemic modal marking. In World atlas of language structures, ed. by MartinHaspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, 310–13. http://www. http://wals.info/chapter/76.

van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map.Linguistic Typology 2:79–124.

Wu, Chunming. 2006. Verb serialization in Kanakanavu. UST Working Papers inLinguistics 2:109–39.

Yeh, Marie M. 2006. The grammaticalization of ’am in Saisiyat. In Streams converginginto an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70thbirthday, ed. by Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho, 393–413.Taipei: Academia Sinica.

———. 2012. From cognition to epistemic modality and to stance marking:Semantic extension of ra:am ‘know’ in Saisiyat. Paper presented at the Work-shop on Epistemicity, Evidentiality and Attitude in Asian Languages: Dis-course, Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, Hong Kong PolytechnicUniversity, Hong Kong.

Yeh, Maya Y., and Shuanfan Huang. 2009. A study of triple verb serialization in fourFormosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 48(1):78–110.

Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. A reference grammar of Tsou. Taipei: Yuan-Liou PublishingCo. [In Chinese.]

Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, and Marie M. Yeh. 1996. The temporal, aspectualand modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. OceanicLinguistics 35(1):21–56.

[email protected] [email protected]

the expression of modality in kanakanavu

Documents